The contradictory nature and
unintelligibility of the Higher Life position[1]
explains why defenders of Keswick can complain that its critics employ
“inaccuracy” and “major misrepresentation” when discussing the movement.[2] Unlike Scripture, which is the non-contradictory
and clear revelation from God about how to live a holy life for His glory, the
contradictions, shallow understanding of theology, and ecumenical confusion
evident at Keswick produced the following self-assessment by Keswick leaders:
unintelligibility of the Higher Life position[1]
explains why defenders of Keswick can complain that its critics employ
“inaccuracy” and “major misrepresentation” when discussing the movement.[2] Unlike Scripture, which is the non-contradictory
and clear revelation from God about how to live a holy life for His glory, the
contradictions, shallow understanding of theology, and ecumenical confusion
evident at Keswick produced the following self-assessment by Keswick leaders:
Defining the fine points of Keswick teaching is not a
simple exercise, for there has never been in its history an agreed system of
the particular truths it has purported to proclaim. A supposed Keswick view on something may depend on who is speaking at the
time. When it is stated fairly
emphatically that “Keswick teaches such and such,” as has often been done, it
is usually possible to find teaching from the Keswick platform that has given a
different slant, an alternative interpretation, or a completely contradictory
one altogether. . . . Critiquing “Keswick teaching” is a little like trying to
hit a moving target, or getting hold of a piece of soap in the bath. . . . It
is important to keep in mind the . . . sharply different views of different
speakers. . . . [M]any phases of the doctrine of holiness have been presented
by a wide variety of speakers, some of them contradictory. . . . Baptists,
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Brethren, Reformed, charismatics, and
those of other persuasions can stand shoulder to shoulder [at Keswick.] . . .
Any attempt, therefore, to survey the preaching at Keswick and create a
systematic picture . . . is bound to be unsatisfactory.[3]
simple exercise, for there has never been in its history an agreed system of
the particular truths it has purported to proclaim. A supposed Keswick view on something may depend on who is speaking at the
time. When it is stated fairly
emphatically that “Keswick teaches such and such,” as has often been done, it
is usually possible to find teaching from the Keswick platform that has given a
different slant, an alternative interpretation, or a completely contradictory
one altogether. . . . Critiquing “Keswick teaching” is a little like trying to
hit a moving target, or getting hold of a piece of soap in the bath. . . . It
is important to keep in mind the . . . sharply different views of different
speakers. . . . [M]any phases of the doctrine of holiness have been presented
by a wide variety of speakers, some of them contradictory. . . . Baptists,
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Brethren, Reformed, charismatics, and
those of other persuasions can stand shoulder to shoulder [at Keswick.] . . .
Any attempt, therefore, to survey the preaching at Keswick and create a
systematic picture . . . is bound to be unsatisfactory.[3]
Rather than following the Biblical model and allowing no
other doctrine than the truth (1 Timothy 1:3), separating from all error
(Romans 16:17), and earnestly contending for all of the faith (Jude 3), Keswick
will allow speakers to contradict each other and mislead their hearers with
false teaching. Keswick critics are then
accused of misrepresentation when they point out heresies and errors in Keswick
writers and speakers. In a similar
manner, separatists who point out that goddess worship goes on at the World
Council of Churches can be accused of misrepresentation by ecumenists, since
only some, but not all, those at the World Council worship goddesses. Thus, certain Keswick critics may represent
Keswick inconsistently because Keswick is not itself consistent—inconsistency
in representations of Keswick may, ironically, be the only consistent representation
of the movement. Of course, a critic of
Keswick certainly may fail to present its position fairly, just as critics of
any position are not universally fair and accurate. However, a statement by a critic of the
Higher Life such as Bruce Waltke that “the Keswick teaching [affirms] that from
the inner passivity of looking to Christ to do everything will issue a
perfection of performance”[4] is
an accurate statement of the dominant classical formulations of Keswick
theology as taught by its founding leaders, not a misrepresentation. There is
no evidence that critics of Keswick are more liable to engage in
misrepresentation than others engaged in theological critique.
other doctrine than the truth (1 Timothy 1:3), separating from all error
(Romans 16:17), and earnestly contending for all of the faith (Jude 3), Keswick
will allow speakers to contradict each other and mislead their hearers with
false teaching. Keswick critics are then
accused of misrepresentation when they point out heresies and errors in Keswick
writers and speakers. In a similar
manner, separatists who point out that goddess worship goes on at the World
Council of Churches can be accused of misrepresentation by ecumenists, since
only some, but not all, those at the World Council worship goddesses. Thus, certain Keswick critics may represent
Keswick inconsistently because Keswick is not itself consistent—inconsistency
in representations of Keswick may, ironically, be the only consistent representation
of the movement. Of course, a critic of
Keswick certainly may fail to present its position fairly, just as critics of
any position are not universally fair and accurate. However, a statement by a critic of the
Higher Life such as Bruce Waltke that “the Keswick teaching [affirms] that from
the inner passivity of looking to Christ to do everything will issue a
perfection of performance”[4] is
an accurate statement of the dominant classical formulations of Keswick
theology as taught by its founding leaders, not a misrepresentation. There is
no evidence that critics of Keswick are more liable to engage in
misrepresentation than others engaged in theological critique.
J.
Robertson McQuilkin, arguing for the Keswick doctrine of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, wrote: “Two authors who attack the [Keswick]
movement and are universally held by Keswick speakers to have misunderstood the
teaching [are] Packer [in his] Keep in
Step With the Spirit [and] Warfield [in his] Studies in Perfectionism.”[5] The only evidence McQuilkin advances that
Warfield misunderstood the Keswick theology is an anecdote. McQuilkin recounts:
Robertson McQuilkin, arguing for the Keswick doctrine of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, wrote: “Two authors who attack the [Keswick]
movement and are universally held by Keswick speakers to have misunderstood the
teaching [are] Packer [in his] Keep in
Step With the Spirit [and] Warfield [in his] Studies in Perfectionism.”[5] The only evidence McQuilkin advances that
Warfield misunderstood the Keswick theology is an anecdote. McQuilkin recounts:
[M]y father, Robert C. McQuilkin, a leader in the
movement known as the Victorious Life Testimony, told me that when [Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionsim] was published,
he went to Warfield and discussed the matter of Keswick teaching and
perfectionism at length. Afterward
Warfield admitted, “If I had known these things, I would not have included the
last chapter [“The Victorious Life”] in my work.”[6]
movement known as the Victorious Life Testimony, told me that when [Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionsim] was published,
he went to Warfield and discussed the matter of Keswick teaching and
perfectionism at length. Afterward
Warfield admitted, “If I had known these things, I would not have included the
last chapter [“The Victorious Life”] in my work.”[6]
J. R. McQuilkin provides no actual instances of
misunderstanding of the Keswick theology, misquotations of Keswick writers, or
any other kind of hard evidence of misrepresentation by Warfield. Such hard evidence is very difficult to come
by since more objective historiography describes Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionism as “meticulous
and precise . . . extensive and detailed analysis . . . [of] the higher life, victorious life, and
Keswick movements. Warfield’s treatment of
these teachings . . . serves as a vivid sample of his thoroughness as a
historical theologian.”[7] Recording in 1987 in his Five Views chapter what McQuilkin claims his father told him
Warfield had said in the early 1930s, long after the parties who allegedly
engaged in the conversation were dead, is hardly actual evidence of
misrepresentation, especially since both McQuilkins have a clear and strong
interest in undermining the credibility of Warfield. Furthermore, J. R. McQuilkin has overlooked
the overwhelming historical problems that make it certain that his anecdote is
inaccurate. David Turner notes: “Something is amiss here, since Warfield’s .
. . will provided for the publication of his critical reviews in book form,
which occurred in 1932. Thus Warfield . . . could not have referred to
retracting this last chapter of his book—he had been dead eleven years when it
was published.”[8] Similarly, Warfield scholar Fred G. Zaspel
indicates:
misunderstanding of the Keswick theology, misquotations of Keswick writers, or
any other kind of hard evidence of misrepresentation by Warfield. Such hard evidence is very difficult to come
by since more objective historiography describes Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionism as “meticulous
and precise . . . extensive and detailed analysis . . . [of] the higher life, victorious life, and
Keswick movements. Warfield’s treatment of
these teachings . . . serves as a vivid sample of his thoroughness as a
historical theologian.”[7] Recording in 1987 in his Five Views chapter what McQuilkin claims his father told him
Warfield had said in the early 1930s, long after the parties who allegedly
engaged in the conversation were dead, is hardly actual evidence of
misrepresentation, especially since both McQuilkins have a clear and strong
interest in undermining the credibility of Warfield. Furthermore, J. R. McQuilkin has overlooked
the overwhelming historical problems that make it certain that his anecdote is
inaccurate. David Turner notes: “Something is amiss here, since Warfield’s .
. . will provided for the publication of his critical reviews in book form,
which occurred in 1932. Thus Warfield . . . could not have referred to
retracting this last chapter of his book—he had been dead eleven years when it
was published.”[8] Similarly, Warfield scholar Fred G. Zaspel
indicates:
Interesting as this [quote by McQuilkin] may be, the
quote cannot be accurate. First,
Warfield never saw the publication of his book Studies in Perfectionism.
This two-volume work is a collection of essays that were originally
published in various theological journals from 1918 to 1921, the last of which
was published posthumously (1921); the
two-volume work to which McQuilkin refers was not published until 1931-1932,
some ten or eleven years after Warfield’s death. Second, the “last chapter” of the book to
which this McQuilkin quote refers is the chapter on the higher life, which was
in fact not the last but the very first article of the series published
(1918). As to the accuracy of the
substance of the remark . . . [w]e only know that while Warfield continued to
write on the broader subject of holiness-perfectionism, he made no retractions.[9]
quote cannot be accurate. First,
Warfield never saw the publication of his book Studies in Perfectionism.
This two-volume work is a collection of essays that were originally
published in various theological journals from 1918 to 1921, the last of which
was published posthumously (1921); the
two-volume work to which McQuilkin refers was not published until 1931-1932,
some ten or eleven years after Warfield’s death. Second, the “last chapter” of the book to
which this McQuilkin quote refers is the chapter on the higher life, which was
in fact not the last but the very first article of the series published
(1918). As to the accuracy of the
substance of the remark . . . [w]e only know that while Warfield continued to
write on the broader subject of holiness-perfectionism, he made no retractions.[9]
Unless a Keswick continuationist raised Warfield from the
dead so that he could recant of his critique of the Higher Life, McQuilkin’s
quote concerning Warfield is historically impossible mythmaking. McQuilkin does not even provide hearsay to
support his statement about Packer’s alleged misrepresentation. Perhaps
these severe problems with McQuilkin’s affirmation explain why he affirms that
Packer and Warfield are “universally held by Keswick speakers to have misunderstood the
teaching”—Keswick writers might have
to provide actual evidence, while speakers
can simply make undocumented and inaccurate statements. Then again, McQuilkin does not just speak his
attempt to discredit Warfield and Packer—he does register his charge in
writing. While McQuilkin did actually
write down the alleged but mythological recantation by Warfield, the Keswick
apologist did not put his quotation in the main body of his chapter in the Five Views book, but in a concluding
section, with the result that the other non-Keswick contributors were unable to
point out the problems with and the vacuity of his affirmation. If one wishes to prove that Keswick has been
misunderstood and misrepresented, mythmaking about Warfield and a passive voice
verb, that Warfield and Packer “are universally held” to have misunderstood the
system, fall abysmally short of the standard of real evidence.
dead so that he could recant of his critique of the Higher Life, McQuilkin’s
quote concerning Warfield is historically impossible mythmaking. McQuilkin does not even provide hearsay to
support his statement about Packer’s alleged misrepresentation. Perhaps
these severe problems with McQuilkin’s affirmation explain why he affirms that
Packer and Warfield are “universally held by Keswick speakers to have misunderstood the
teaching”—Keswick writers might have
to provide actual evidence, while speakers
can simply make undocumented and inaccurate statements. Then again, McQuilkin does not just speak his
attempt to discredit Warfield and Packer—he does register his charge in
writing. While McQuilkin did actually
write down the alleged but mythological recantation by Warfield, the Keswick
apologist did not put his quotation in the main body of his chapter in the Five Views book, but in a concluding
section, with the result that the other non-Keswick contributors were unable to
point out the problems with and the vacuity of his affirmation. If one wishes to prove that Keswick has been
misunderstood and misrepresented, mythmaking about Warfield and a passive voice
verb, that Warfield and Packer “are universally held” to have misunderstood the
system, fall abysmally short of the standard of real evidence.
[1] For
example, Jacob Abbott, reviewing the foundational The Higher Christian Life by William Boardman, notes:
example, Jacob Abbott, reviewing the foundational The Higher Christian Life by William Boardman, notes:
[W]e will proceed to state, as
clearly as fairly as we can, the results of our investigation [of Boardman’s
book]. . . . [T]he book is a difficult one to analyze satisfactorily[.] . . .
In a word, the book has no method at all;
no development, no progress, no “lucidus ordon.” We are not sure it would suffer (with
trifling qualifications) by arranging its eighteen chapters in any order
different from the present, even if that were by chance.
clearly as fairly as we can, the results of our investigation [of Boardman’s
book]. . . . [T]he book is a difficult one to analyze satisfactorily[.] . . .
In a word, the book has no method at all;
no development, no progress, no “lucidus ordon.” We are not sure it would suffer (with
trifling qualifications) by arranging its eighteen chapters in any order
different from the present, even if that were by chance.
But to
the treatise. What is the subject
treated? What does the writer mean by
the “higher life?” and by “second conversion?” as its equivalent, or the
stepping-stone to it? Precisely what he
does mean, we will not attempt to say;
because it is not said intelligibly
in the book, and cannot be inferred from the book. On the contrary, it can be inferred, most
certainly, from the book, that he had no well-defined idea, in his own mind, on
the subject (see p. 57). . . . Let us now pass on to that which is obtained in
“second conversion.” And here . . . we
have got to the end of the author’s self-consistency, and shall henceforth
wander about, in fogs thicker than those of the Grand Bank. . . . We are aware
that he, or a defender of his system, may take the same book and convict us of
unfairness[,] [f]or we have already given some examples of the contradictions
it contains. There are others.
the treatise. What is the subject
treated? What does the writer mean by
the “higher life?” and by “second conversion?” as its equivalent, or the
stepping-stone to it? Precisely what he
does mean, we will not attempt to say;
because it is not said intelligibly
in the book, and cannot be inferred from the book. On the contrary, it can be inferred, most
certainly, from the book, that he had no well-defined idea, in his own mind, on
the subject (see p. 57). . . . Let us now pass on to that which is obtained in
“second conversion.” And here . . . we
have got to the end of the author’s self-consistency, and shall henceforth
wander about, in fogs thicker than those of the Grand Bank. . . . We are aware
that he, or a defender of his system, may take the same book and convict us of
unfairness[,] [f]or we have already given some examples of the contradictions
it contains. There are others.
(pgs. 508-509, 516, 527, Review of William E.
Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life,
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jacob J. Abbott. Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1860) 508-535)
Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life,
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jacob J. Abbott. Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1860) 508-535)
Similarly, Stephen Barabas notes: “Keswick [has] furnishe[d] us with no formal
treatise of its doctrine of sin, and no carefully prepared, weighty discourses of a theological nature . . . for over seventy-five years” (pg. 51, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick
Convention). Since the Higher Life
position itself is a murky muddle of confusion it is just about inevitable that
those who criticize specific representative statements and affirmations by
Keswick advocates will be accused of misrepresentation by those who can cite
conflicting and contradictory Higher Life statements.
treatise of its doctrine of sin, and no carefully prepared, weighty discourses of a theological nature . . . for over seventy-five years” (pg. 51, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick
Convention). Since the Higher Life
position itself is a murky muddle of confusion it is just about inevitable that
those who criticize specific representative statements and affirmations by
Keswick advocates will be accused of misrepresentation by those who can cite
conflicting and contradictory Higher Life statements.
[2] Keswick’s defenders regularly
affirm critics misrepresent; see also,
e. g., the
defense of Keswick and critique of Warfield on pgs. 213-215 of Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
affirm critics misrepresent; see also,
e. g., the
defense of Keswick and critique of Warfield on pgs. 213-215 of Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[3] Pgs.
34-35, 222-226, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
34-35, 222-226, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[4] Pg. 22,
“Evangelical Spirituality: A Biblical Scholar’s Perspective.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 31:1.
“Evangelical Spirituality: A Biblical Scholar’s Perspective.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 31:1.
[5] Pg.
183, Five Views of Sanctification. Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley
M Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin & John F. Walvoord, authors; Stanley N. Gundry, series ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987.
183, Five Views of Sanctification. Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley
M Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin & John F. Walvoord, authors; Stanley N. Gundry, series ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987.
[6] Pg.
245, Five Views of Sanctification,
Dieter et. al.
245, Five Views of Sanctification,
Dieter et. al.
[7] Pg.
465, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary, Fred G. Zaspel.
465, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary, Fred G. Zaspel.
[8] Pg. 98,
Review by David L. Turner of Five Views on Sanctification, by Melvin E.
Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John
F. Walvoord. Grace Theological Journal
10:1 (1989) 94-98.
Review by David L. Turner of Five Views on Sanctification, by Melvin E.
Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John
F. Walvoord. Grace Theological Journal
10:1 (1989) 94-98.
[9] Pgs.
473-474, The Theology of B. B.
Warfield: A Systematic Summary, Fred
G. Zaspel.
473-474, The Theology of B. B.
Warfield: A Systematic Summary, Fred
G. Zaspel.
Producing no evidence reminds me of a famous line from the Mexican bandit in The Treasure of Sierra Madre: "Badges? We ain't got no badges, We don't need no badges, I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!” Just substitute evidence for badges. Seriously, good point about inconsistency within Keswick theology & proponents. All around helpful.
Dear Bro Bill,
Thanks.
By the way, going on testimonials rather than Scripture, or even accurate history, is sadly too typical for Keswick. People receive testimony of having entered into the Blessing, and others believe that the Higher Life doctrine is true on that basis. Similarly, here someone testifies that Warfield recanted, so the Higher Life is validated, even if the recantation is historically impossible.