Bye!

Hey everyone.

First I'd like to say thanks to those who read and opined on this blog. Second it was fun, and great practice. That said, I'm not going to be blogging here anymore. I have not given up on blogging but due to some personal changes I felt like I needed a fresh start.

You can now find my stuff at www.yearsofmysojourning.wordpress.com

God bless.

Mike

The New Marcionism?

Over the past few months I have come across posts online referring to the ancient heresy of Marcionism. Not only is Marcionism alive and thriving in America today, it has infected the church. Many ministers have been swept away by a form of this destructive ancient heresy, or so the posts have been saying. After some reflection on the subject I have decided to pen a polemic of sorts and deal with what Marcionism actually is and to see if it is truly alive and well in the church today. Before I go any further a word must be said about heresy. There are different kinds of heresy and not all heresy can be considered “damnable heresy” and may fall within the bounds of heterodoxy (which means: sort of heretical or heresy lite). In light of this we must be cautious when tempted to slap the heresy label on a theological point we either do not know or do not understand. Also it must be noted that the history of the church is vast and, contrary to popular belief in many circles, the church did not suffer a great apostasy. The Holy Spirit has always been present from Pentecost to today. The third person of the Holy Trinity did not disappear after the Apostles died only to pop up again later at Azusa Street.

Firstly it must be asked, “Who can judge if something is heresy or not? By what authority can one make a pronouncement of heresy?” All too often in discourse, especially on the internet, well meaning Christians, rightly concerned about the state of the church in America, throw the term around to anyone who disagrees with their point of view. The Evangelical church has reduced Christianity down to what Dr. Bradley Nassif calls “Christological minimalism.” What is the bare amount someone needs to believe to be saved? This is how Christianity is approached and, depending on what group a person fellowships with, this will be different as is their definition of heresy. For example, Oneness Pentecostals consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be a man made addition not something that the Bible, although not mentioning it by name, teaches.

This leaves us with a few problems here: Oneness Pentecostals would be considered by most confessional Christians as heretics due to their refusal to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. They themselves would consider themselves as biblical literalists and not as heretics. See the problem? By whose authority can one Christian group consider another heretical? This is exacerbated by the subdivision of Protestantism into thousands of independent splinter groups, each one totally free from, and in many cases eschewing, any sort of authority structure beyond their own interpretation of Scripture. The great gift of the Reformation is also its greatest curse namely that the Bible should be available in the regular languages of every Christian. This great blessing is counterbalanced by the consequences of every Christian making their own pronouncements and interpretations divorced from any sort of history or tradition. This is why Christianity has creeds and why Christians, though they may not know the creeds when they come to faith in Christ, should come to know and affirm the historic boundaries of their faith.

So much more can be said on this subject but I will distill it to this point: Independent churches have no guiding confessions beyond their own theological point of view, which is usually a hodgepodge of different theological influences ranging from the dubious to the historic, so they cannot justify charges of heresy because they have nothing to judge heresy by beyond their own interpretation of Scripture. Many would profess affirmation to some of the creeds but many would actually disagree with the creeds and make their own interpretations the primary guiding factor. However, confessional churches do have guiding theological principles based on history and the creeds, and a charge of heresy from them would carry weight.

Now that the groundwork on heresy has been laid we turn to Marcionism. Marcionism is named for the heretic Marcion. The church usually named heresy based on the primary person responsible for its dissemination like Pelagius, Arius, Nestorius, and Sabellius (you get the idea). Marcion was born to a Christian family; his father was the bishop of Sinope near the Black Sea. He was brought up in orthodox Christianity of that time and became a successful merchant. This allowed him to pursue his various theological interests. He began to preach in Asia Minor and eventually went to Rome. The church there excommunicated him around the year 144 and as a result he set up his own “Christian” church. Christian historian Justo Gonzalez said that Marcion did so possibly in order to differentiate Christianity from Judaism as the Romans had, in his lifetime, put down a serious uprising of apocalyptic Jews. Gonzalez also notes that Marcion may have thought that if he could divorce Christianity from its Jewish roots he could help cease persecution against Christians. Regardless of his intentions he did great damage to the church that lasted a few centuries, but great good came from it as well. Marcion developed a very robust though skewed Pauline theology and rejected completely the writings of what came to be known as the Old Testament. The following is a summary of his theology:

·      The God of Israel is wrathful, evil, vindictive, unforgiving, dictatorial God who, although was responsible for creating the world, is vastly different from the loving Father Jesus professed to be sent from.

·      The Father’s purpose was to have a spiritual world but the Old Testament God, YHWH, corrupted his plans and created a physical world and populated it with humanity.

·      Similar to the Gnostics he saw the created world as a sham and saw Jesus’ Incarnation as an illusion. If the Father wanted a spiritual world and YHWH corrupted that world then Jesus’ Incarnation is an illusion. If Jesus were physically born of the Virgin Mary then he would have been under the control of YHWH. So, for Marcion, Jesus had to be a spirit being that only looked like a grown human man (which was the heresy of docetism that the church, specifically St. Ignatius, had already condemned in the early 100’s).

·      Christians should completely reject what came to be known as the Old Testament since the OT God is not the same as the God Christians worshipped (even though Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures).

·      Since there was no canon at this time Marcion made his own canon comprised of the Gospel of Luke, due to it’s indirect attachment to St. Paul, and the Pauline Epistles except 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. This is problematic as St. Paul’s Epistles refer to Judaism but Marcion justified its presence in the Pauline corpus by accrediting it to later Judaizers.

·      Since the material world is not the ideal world then people must live as free from the material world as possible. Celibacy and extreme asceticism was the order of the day for the Marcionites.

·      Lastly Marcion rejected the Old Testament entirely because of the contrast it created between law and gospel. If the God of the OT was not the true God of love then law itself had to have been evil as well since the law required justice and punishment for infractions.

As a result of these theological aberrations Marcion caused great damage to the still burgeoning church chiefly because he organized his own church complete with hierarchy, liturgy, and a canon of scripture. It was so similar to the Christian church of it’s day that it was difficult to distinguish between the two and bishops had to warn their flock to be on the lookout. So Marcion not only was a polytheist he also had flavors of Gnosticism and docetism in his theology. In his mind the Old Testament should be rejected in its entirety and only a select number of Epistles from St. Paul should be considered binding.

What does the heresy of Marcion then have to do with the church in America today? If some preachers are to be believed then Marcionism is still very present in the church as something to be overcome. But is this assertion true? I think it is true that the effects of Marcionism can still be seen but that Marcionism itself as a belief system is no longer with us in various forms. To be sure there are some Christian denominations that will not preach often from the Old Testament and there are those who have oversimplified the relationship between law and gospel in order to make the idea of a loving God more palatable. The charge though that Marcionism is still in the church is a charge we can discard. Many charges of Marcionism come from Christian groups themselves that may not have an accurate understanding of law and gospel. Some Christian groups believe that the Old Testament is the key to understanding how government should function in the life of the United States of America irrespective of the context of the law, who it was given specifically for, and for what purpose. Those that do not agree with this theological viewpoint are labeled as heretics, or as severely misguided as scripture clearly teaches that the Old Testament law is the standard form of God’s perfect government applicable to all men at all time.

The tension between the law of the Old Testament and the grace of God is something that theologians have been grappling with since the early days of the church itself. Some have even noted that, and I agree, the giving of the law itself IS an act of grace from a loving God. We can reject the charges of popular Marcionism because the Evangelical church as a whole rejects the notion that YHWH is a different God, rejects dualism, rejects the docetic view of Jesus, affirms the goodness of the created world even though it has been marred by sin, affirms the Old Testament as part of God’s written word to us, and affirms that God’s love and his law are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the grace of God actually gives us the ability to follow the moral principles as laid out by the law. As Gonzalez wrote, “Jesus does not abandon the moral law of Israel but helps us grow into people who are more able to live by it.”

So why then have these trumped up charges of Marcionism arisen? Historian Diarmid MacCulloch, commenting on Marcion, wrote something that is also applicable to those who foster the charges of popular Marcionism. He wrote, “… It is clear that he (Marcion) was a literalist who despised any figurative or allegorical interpretation of scripture and rather took the first apparent sense. If that sense clashed with his own sense of true religion, he simply rejected the text.” Unfortunately there is nothing more American, and in most cases heretical, then that.

Sources:

Gonzalez, Catherine & Gonzalez, Justo L. Heretics for Armchair Theologians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Vol. 1. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

MacCulloch, Diarmid. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Viking Penguin, 2009.

            

Life, Death, and God's Glory

It has been a very difficult week.

My Grandfather, Marty Fisch, died on Thursday morning, and that same day I found out that my Aunt Karen has been diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a degenerative neurological disorder that has no treatment or cure and is always fatal. I did not know my grandfather very well but I do have some key memories of him, one of them being he taught me how to swim at the local lake near where we lived in Oklahoma. My aunt on the other hand I have many memories of. Every summer we would drive to her and my Uncle Ron's farm. I would stomp around the fields with the cows trying, unsuccessfully, to avoid their droppings. I would play in the bales of hay inside the barn and scratch the backs of the cows with the cow scratcher, they always seemed to like that. My aunt is my mom's sister and our family has always been closer to my mothers side then my fathers side. Much of that has to do with my father converting to Christianity from Judaism, becoming a minister, and then marrying my mother, a non-Jew. This caused a rift on his side of the family, though in later years the rift was healed between our family, primarily due to my mom having children which, I suppose, is enough to melt even the coldest of hearts. I cannot chalk the lessening of the rift due to that though when I can see how God providentially has moved in my family.

My Nana, my dad's mother, came to faith in Christ before she died as did my Grandpa George, his stepfather. His sister also has come to faith in Christ. God has been good to our family and I revel in the glory that has brought to him. My dad's biological father, the one that just died, is a bit of a tougher situation though. He died and we do not know if he ever had saving faith in Christ. Through the years my mom and dad shared the gospel with him and my mom again shared the great hope we have in Jesus Christ with him a few weeks before he died. When my dad called me to tell me that grandpa had died I prayed with him over the phone, trying my hardest not to break out into tears. As we prayed I started to thank God that even though we did not know if my grandpa professed faith in Christ that we can take comfort that God knows and we can trust in the fact that he knows. I prayed that we can also take comfort in the fact that even though we do not know, God is just and he alone judges fairly, justly, rightly, and compassionately. As I sat down after hanging up the phone I put on a song on my stereo, started to pray and struggled to sing through the tears that had started to form. The song was To You We Bring Our Hymn of Praise by Stuart Townend. The lyrics go like this:

To you we bring our hymn of praise
Glory be to God.
Hearts and hands together raised,
Glory be to God
Who spoke before the dawn of time,
Glory be to God.
Veil of darkness torn by light,
Glory be to God.

And with unceasing voice all heaven sings,
Glory be to God.
The anthem of the Lord's redeemed,
Glory be to God.

You purchased captives for your saints,
Glory be to God.
Opened wide the kingdom gates
Glory be to God.
You overcame the sting of death,
Glory be to God.
Clothed us in Christ's righteousness,
Glory be to God.

And all your children cry with loud acclaim
Glory be to God.
Sing o Church your sweet refrain,
Glory be to God.

Father, Spirit, risen Son,
Glory be to God.
Who was and is and is to come,
Glory be to God.

This song has been unbelievably comforting to me this past week. With everything that is going on, this song was like God dropped an anchor in my heart to keep me focused on what is ultimate, namely himself and what he has done for us in Christ. Yesterday I listened to two sermons by John Piper both were difficult to hear but both were the most God-glorifying, Christ-exalting sermons on the topic of sickness and death I have ever heard. We are praying for a miracle for my aunt, if God performs one then glory be to God. If he does not, then glory be God. I firmly believe now that everything will glorify God, our lives and even our deaths, and that has been the most comforting thing throughout this family ordeal.

Glory be to God.
 
Post script: My Aunt Karen, who was one of the subjects of this post, died Saturday night. In light of this my belief in what I originally posted has deepened. I found a fantastic quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon. He said, "Oh dear friend, when grief pushes thee to the very dust, worship there!" Amen.

A Contrast in Two Deaths

At the risk of sounding insensitive I wanted to write about something that has been gnawing in the back of my head about the life and death of two Christian leaders. One was Dr. John Stott and the other was Zachary Tims. One was a well-respected theologian, churchman, and author, the other was a mega-church pastor prominently featured on TBN and in circles that many would consider heterodox. One considered celibacy to be his lifelong calling and never wavered in his commitment, the other was disgraced by an affair and a divorce. One was a lifelong evangelist passionate for the gospel, preaching on health, wealth, and personal victory marked the other. Both men were considered heroes to those who followed them, and both men recently died within a few weeks of each other. One died in peace surrounded by his friends and family listening to Handel’s Messiah, the other died alone in a hotel room in New York City with a packet of what has yet to be determined, but was most likely narcotics. The work of one was primarily invisible; the work of the other was broadcast on TV stations all over the world. At the eulogy of Tims, Bishop T.D. Jakes said, “"I thought I was the only one who knew how unhappy Zach was, how broken he was, how afraid he was if anybody was to see any flaw in him. He tried hard to heal himself, to fix himself.” At Stott’s eulogy J.I. Packer said, “John Stott was the most modest of men. If he could have briefed me in advance for this message that I am to give now, he would most certainly have said to me, ‘Focus on Christ. Don’t focus on me.’”

I think these two lives, deaths, and eulogies are important to those of us who live in the aftermath of their deaths. Packer said of Stott, “(he) was a man concerned with every breath he took, that everyone to whom he ministered should enjoy the fullness of the full gospel in its truth and in its power, and should not change any part of it because that would mean exchanging the true gospel for a false one.” For Stott the gospel meant liberation from the curse of sin and death. For him it meant that through the work of Christ we have forgiveness of sins and life in the world to come. For Stott the gospel was something that was to be stated clearly, guarded carefully, and he did those things especially against the rise of theological liberalism. For Tims, “(he) conveys a life changing concept that brings divine reversal in the lives of a people hungry for God and ready for change. It speaks to the heart of man, with a balance of practical principles for living a successful and purpose driven life free of sin, sickness, worry, and debt.” Both men would say that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ and that the forgiveness of sins is through Christ alone. Both men would preach that Christ is to be proclaimed but the content of that proclamation would be radically different. For Stott the gospel is what God has already done for us in Christ. The gospel is what we cling to, it is what sets us apart from every other religion and self help group. For Tims the gospel was primarily a mechanism by which God gives us the things we can receive without him: financial success, vision, purpose, and worry-free living. If Jakes is right then that means that Tims’ drive to heal and fix himself was an exercise in futility. We all struggle with the sin that still resides in us and we never will be perfectly sinless until the parousia, but the great news of the gospel is not that we try to heal ourselves or fix ourselves but that Christ has already done what is necessary to heal us and what is required of us is to repent and to believe.

If you are reading this then please do not think I am making personal judgments or attacks on them, I am only trying to highlight the differences in their belief systems and how their deaths brought these into sharper focus for me (and also why these distinctions matter). I am not saying that Tims was not a Christian but his gospel was troublesome and it is difficult to see Christ in it apart from Christ as the giver of material goods and services. For Stott, Christ was and is the center of everything, not our divine potential for vision casting and purposeful living. I write this knowing that I may be wrong. I did not know either men so I must work from secondary sources like sermons, books, and websites. I think that two men and their deaths are a microcosm of the state of the church in the United States. We are at war with ourselves for the soul of our faith. We are fighting against what I am increasingly calling “cheap gospel” the gospel that gets us what we want rather then what we need. It's possible that the way they both died is in line with the gospels they preached. The more we preach on what we think God wants to do for us materially rather then what God has already done for us in Christ then we will continue as a church culture to grow increasingly unhappy because we do not realize that what God offers to us will outlast any material possessions or “victorious purposeful living” we strive for in this life. GK Chesterton once said, “Jesus promised his disciples three things—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble." If anyone modeled this, Stott did. All that said, I pray for the families of both men and for the people they influenced. Tims leaves behind an ex-wife and four children and I pray for the Holy Spirit to sustain them in their time of grief. Hopefully through them both God was glorified and that people were brought from death to new life in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Reflections of a seminarian

In a few short months I will be coming up on a year of seminary under my belt. My last Spring class will be completed at the end of June followed by two months off with the Fall term beginning in September. I started studying in September 2010 and began with what my advisor claimed would be an easy start: Biblical Hebrew. Personally I believe he was testing me by seeing how I would perform academically and so I threw myself into it and passed Hebrew 1 and 2 with great grades. It has been a fantastic experience and the effect it has had on me, both personally and professionally, has been inestimable. There are several things one needs to keep in mind though about seminary or higher theological education, so I have prepared a list of what I think are helpful pointers for anyone desiring to pursue a higher degree in any ecclesial function.

1) Identify your non-negotiables and stick with them.

Mike Petrow gave me that piece of advice and it has served me well this year. Seminary is a place where, depending on where you go, students can challenge, embrace, or wrestle with the implication of Church history, community, theology and practice of the past two thousand years and how it affects our own context. The Nicene Creed of 381 can be of great benefit here. What do you refuse to compromise on? Find those areas and hold tightly to them. The trick to this is identifying that which is most essential to the core of the Christian faith and not on what is peripheral. Do not make your non-negotiables the belief in a six thousand year old Earth or baptism by immersion. Make sure your non-negotiables are things like the deity of Christ and the resurrection.

2) Learn to deal with and think through tough content you may disagree with.

You will be assigned a variety of books and will need to read them all. Some of the content will not only challenge you but in some areas it may anger you. Last term I had to read a book by a controversial black theologian on black liberation theology. The author made the claim that white people could not accurately interpret scripture. Obviously that is a divisive and unhelpful comment. It angered me and many of my classmates but instead of holding on to that feeling of anger I decided to read deeper and see why it had that effect on me. The theologian made some very good comments on culture, oppression, and theology and if I did not push through my anger I would have been blind to the very helpful things the book discussed.

3) Stay grounded in the Scriptures.

This is probably the area I am weakest in and it is the area I am working towards improving. It is easy to read books about God and it is easy to be familiar with what others say about God, but one needs to be more familiar with Scripture then what John Calvin or Karl Barth says about Scripture. When dealing with theological issues know what Scripture says not how someone else would defend what it says. Dr. D.A. Carson gave a wonderful lecture called The Pastor as Scholar and hit on this topic. It is available online and I recommend that people in ministry and seminary listen to it.

4) Develop friendships with other students.

Make friends with your classmates. We all come from a variety of backgrounds and denominational affiliations and input from your peers is a great blessing. In certain classes I was the go to guy for questions on certain aspects of Pentecostalism due to my former involvement with an offshoot of Pentecostalism called Word of Faith. Interacting with my classmates and answering questions both in class and outside of class not only helped them get a better understanding of the topic but also helped me greatly in identifying what I actually believe on the subject and how I can see those beliefs reflected in the Scriptures. Conversations with them also will help sharpen you theologically so remain open to their input. Also the friendships I have made have helped keep me motivated in class and have aided in keeping me focused. (That and the friends I have made are great people to hang around with too so take a bow Cliff, Jason, Caleb, and Matt).

5) Seminary or higher theological education is not for everyone.

I don’t say this to be arrogant but higher education is not for everyone. Some people may be served better by studying Bible or theology at a Christian college. Seminary cranks that up to the next level. As a student I am continually challenged by the lectures and the readings to try and form theological underpinnings that will guide me through the rest of my life and ministry. Anything that challenges my non-negotiables is not rejected outright but analyzed because it good to know why I don’t hold to a certain view just as much as it is good to know why I do hold a certain view. Seminary is long and expensive, if you are looking to supplement your Bible knowledge or to learn more about God and church history then there are other great resources out there other then seminary. To go deeper in your faith you need to read. A lot. Seminary is not always the answer.

6) Work for a church or ministry while in seminary.

If you do go to seminary try to do so while working for a church or ministry. Seminary will give you a lot of tools, theory, and information. If you do not have a place to use those tools then it may not do you much good. There are students in some of my classes who are hurt and bitter with the church and I think that seminary may not be a good place for them because it can give them tools by which they can dissect the faith to such an extreme that it loses its power. We all have had bad experiences with the church because the people who serve in the church are just as much sinners saved by grace as those who attend the church.

That is all I can think of off the top of my head. My prayer is that it will be helpful and informative to some of you who may read it. Hopefully I will continue to keep these steps in mind as I begin to enter my second year as a seminary student. I am looking forward to the next set of courses and looking forward to interacting with new professors and making new friends. If anyone wants to discuss further anything I have talked about then feel free to email me or hit me up on Facebook. Soli Deo Gloria.

Luther, Zeal, and the Gospel

While reading the Table Talks by Martin Luther one of the sections stood out to me. It was Luther’s description of his journey from Catholicism towards his understanding of justification by faith which culminated with the Protestant Reformation. He starts off with his motivation for entering the monastery, discusses how his beliefs led him to eventually discard the trappings of what he was preaching against, and what those steps meant for him personally. This portion has an almost Pauline flavor at the beginning. He writes (pg. 76), “For in the period of my monk days I served the Pope with such diligence that I out-did all the papists who lived or now live… and I observed the regulations of our order in the strictest manner.” This echoes what Paul wrote in Philippians 3:4-6 (ESV), “Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” Luther, like Paul, was more than zealous then many of his contemporaries. Early in the book he mentions how upon his trip to Rome he was repulsed by the mockery of the sacraments and he said that neither sin, God, nor shame were given any notice (pg. 74). Both men were blinded by their zealotry and both men had encounters with God, via scripture in Luther’s case, and a vision in Paul’s case. When this happened the zealotry remained but it was reformed into something better and it was pointed towards a new purpose.

It must have been a terrible shock to the monk who took his religion seriously to see the excesses before him. I heard a pastor say recently that we do not obey God because we want him to love us; rather we obey God because he loves us. This in an apt description to the problems Luther saw and how these problems are still with us in the church today. Many ministers, myself included, have a zeal to help the people in our churches so we invent programs, fancy advertisements, loud music, flashy graphics, and sermons that reduce the transformative power of the Gospel to moral obligations. We do these things to attract people, to appear relevant, to put a good image but this can be just as bad as the belief that relics could take years off of time spent in purgatory. The life of Luther should show us that preaching a Gospel of morality or self-help is just as harmful as the gospel of works and paid-for salvation of the church of that time. In our attempts to contextualize the Gospel we must never dilute the Gospel and understand that the Gospel, while understood in various cultural contexts, is something that calls culture to submit to Christ. If we as ministers do not understand it or disagree with it we run the risk of becoming just as legalistic and bound to ritual and formulae as the church of Martin Luther’s day.

Religious Affections

I recently read a selection from Jonathan Edwards in Devotional Classics. The excerpt in this reading begins with, "The kind of religion God requires… Does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless "wouldlings" - those weak inclinations that lack convictions - that raise us but little above indifference. God insists that we be good earnest, fervent in spirit, and that our hearts be engaged vigorously in our religion." Many years ago I would have been surprised to read a statement like this from a Calvinist or someone from a Reformed tradition. My tradition was one that eschewed all tradition except the one we were making, forging, and practicing for ourselves at that set time and place. We heard scary stories of other denominations that denied the power of the Holy Spirit, denominations that were dry, dead, and dying because they refused the gift of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The problem comes when one reads someone like Jonathan Edwards.

He writes, "When we receive the Spirit of God we receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost who is like fire and along with it the sanctifying and saving influences of God. When this happens… it burns within us." These are not the words of a dried up passionless man. These are the words of a soul hungry for God, a soul thirsty for that which only God can give. I think that many Pentecostals would do well to read Jonathan Edwards because in this portion he highlights one of the primary attributes of the Holy Spirit, namely the convicting work he does in our hearts and his sanctifying power in the lives of Christians. I find it amusing that many in Pentecostal circles would dismiss Edwards because of the Christian tradition he hails from but what I see here is a man just as baptized in the Holy Spirit as anyone from the Pentecostal stream.

Later he mentions what he terms the "spring of action" and how stirred by the Spirit, our affections are also stirred. He also ties in the knowledge of doctrine and theology with religious affection, correctly noting that knowledge of these things are useless without our hearts being stirred first. Reading this passage made me think of the other day when I was teaching a class on water baptism at my church. I read Titus 3:3-7 and as I was reading it, my eyes began to water and my voice began to crack. There is something about this scriptural passage that always stirs me to tears, always stirs my affection, but also my gratitude to God for his love and for saving me. It made me understand that a neglected part of the work of the Holy Spirit in my tradition is conviction. We would highlight the convicting work of the Spirit in regards to conversion but we would focus on the ecstatic experience as a way of sanctification rather then the Holy Spirit stirring our affections for God in such a way that encourages us to keep from sinning as we pursue Him.