Chapter 14.3

Responding to Mega Mysticism

Table of Topics

A) Responding to Mega Mysticism

B) Dealing With the Real Reason for Mega Mysticism

C) Modern Responses to Mega Mysticism

C.1) John MacArthur

C.2) J. I. Packer

C.3) D. M. Lloyd-Jones

C.4) Bruce Waltke

C.5) John Piper

C.6) Other Modern Responses

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Responding to the claims of mega mysticism is both vital and complex for the same reason: the debate is at the heart of how God communicates.
• if indeed God is regularly granting personal revelation apart from Scripture then there would hardly be anything more valuable in the world and we would desperately want to know how to access it. On the other hand, if mega mystics are wrong, they are making themselves vulnerable to the devil’s deception, lying to themselves and others, making decisions based on feelings rather than reason, and practicing forms of evil divination.
• Our first response is clearly the most important one. Mega mysticism is unbiblical. There is not one verse of Scripture that supports the idea that God is providing divine revelation to people to help them make extra-biblical decisions. If someone claimed that God spoke to them through a donkey, they would have more biblical precedent than mega mystics have for claiming extra-biblical divine revelation through mental telepathy.
• Mega mysticism fails to demonstrate the ultimate proof of anyone claiming to be receiving more divine revelation from God or experiencing more intimacy with Him: More spiritual fruit and maturity in their lives.
• There are no examples of any of God’s people experiencing God directly planting thoughts in their mind.
• Throughout Church history mega mysticism has been rejected and warned against in orthodox Christianity.
• The attraction and addiction of mega mysticism is not based on Scripture, but emotion. People will believe what they want to believe.
• MacArthur: “Mysticism has caught many Christians unaware. It has swept the church into a dangerous netherworld of confusion and false teaching.
• Packer: “The idea of a life in which the inward voice of the Spirit decides and directs everything sounds attractive, for it seems to exalt the Spirit’s ministry and to promise the closest intimacy with God. In practice this quest for super-spirituality leads only to frantic bewilderment or lunacy.

A) Responding to Mega Mysticism

Mega mysticism is clearly the most popular view on divine guidance in American Christianity. To tell people today that God does not normally “speak” apart from His written word is rare, and will offend many. Along these lines, Gary Friesen, who wrote a classic book on what we believe to be a more biblical view, writes:

The subtitle to the first edition of my full-length book on this subject is “A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional [mega mystical] View.” To say it caused a stir when it came out in 1980 would be euphemistic. The traditional [mega mystical] view was so strongly entrenched at the time that most evangelicals were not even aware of an alternative to their understanding. I labeled the alternative the “wisdom view,” but critics called it deistic, impersonal, and unbiblical.

The book was branded as “the Russian Roulette view of guidance” and “the most dangerous book on the Christian market:” It was banned by some Christian institutions, and one prominent evangelical leader called me a “heretic” for several years. During the past twenty-eight years, over a thousand people have written letters responding to the book-and most were positive. But I’ll never forget the one that ended, “P.S. Everything you know is wrong.” ^[1]

As noted in the first chapter:

Responding to the claims of mega mysticism is both vital and complex for the same reason: the debate is at the heart of how God communicates with us today. Accordingly, it is incredibly important, because if indeed God is regularly granting personal revelation apart from Scripture then there would hardly be anything more valuable in the world and we would desperately want to know how to access it. On the other hand, if mega mysticism is wrong, then people are making themselves vulnerable to deception, misleading themselves and others, liable to making decisions based on feelings rather than reason, and in danger of violating the biblical warnings against divination.

Nevertheless, perhaps our greatest concern in this book is that we would unnecessarily offend those who would read it. We have many good, godly friends who share a different view on divine guidance and they deserve the utmost respect. But because we believe so many Scriptures are being misinterpreted and applied in the area of divine guidance, and that mega mysticism can lead to all sorts of vulnerabilities in the Christian life, we offer the following for consideration.

This topic is complex as well because it touches on the vitals of biblical epistemology (how do we know what we know?) and divine revelation (how does God communicate to us?). Accordingly, as demonstrated in subsequent chapters, mega mystic claims involve a great deal of the topics addressed in previous chapters of Knowing Our God. How then will we proceed?

First, in this chapter we will provide a brief outline of the chapters in this book, describing in general our response to mega mysticism. Secondly, we provide responses from a few of our favorite modern respected Christian Teachers and scholars on the topic.

Our first response is clearly the most important one. Mega mysticism is unbiblical. There is not one verse of Scripture that supports the idea that God is providing divine revelation to people to help them make extra-biblical decisions. For all the claims by mega mystics today, they cannot even point to one single example of a person in Scripture experiencing such a thing. As the well known Professor of Theology at Princeton, Emile Caillet, wrote in Eternity magazine:

We may be startled at realizing that the New Testament has next to nothing to say about the ways of ascertaining God’s will for one’s life—a major concern for us, yet one seemingly unknown to early Christians. ^[2]

Along the same lines, Gary Friesen remarks:

[T]he proffered biblical illustrations [for mega mysticism] are instances of [physical, objective] special revelation, not inward impulses. The primary sources of authority for this view are individuals who hold it—notably luminaries of the mystical tradition such as Ignatius Loyola and John Wesley. Such historical masters offer valuable insights, but . . . they do not rise to the level of apostolic authority. ^[3]

There are, of course, biblical examples of God directing individual very specifically (e.g. Abram and Lot to move, Gen 12:1-4; Elijah to hide, 1 Kgs 17:2-6; Philip and Peter where to witness, Acts 8:26-9, 10:9-24; Paul and Barnabas to be missionaries, Acts 13:1-4). However, none of these instances involved God merely planting thoughts in the mind as mega mystics depend on. In fact, if someone claimed that God spoke to them through a donkey, they would have more biblical precedent for saying so than mega mystics have for claiming extra-biblical divine revelation through mental telepathy.

Again, we have defined mega mysticism as: The belief that God is regularly revealing an extra-biblical will for our lives through mental telepathy, or our correct interpretation of circumstances. There is no biblical support at all for any part of what mega mystics claim. There is no command in all of Scripture to have a conversational relationship with God. And even mega mystics admit this to some extent when they tell us that one must learn by trial and error, rather than from Scripture, how to correctly receive and recognize this extrabiblical communication.

Therefore, we are claiming to demonstrate in this book that such great Christians today as John Eldredge, Bill Hybels, Dallas Willard and Henry Blackaby are unbiblical in their understanding of divine guidance- an area they are highly respected in—and are misleading many, many Christians in this area.

In chapter 14.4 we demonstrate that mega mysticism violates all kinds of biblical teaching on the topic of divine revelation. This includes the fact that, contrary to mega mysticism, God’s revelation to people was always easily recognized because it was always in an obvious form and with the intended purpose that it be obeyed to avoid sin. Mega mysticism also ignores God’s desire to progress from the micro-managing specificity of His revelation to His OT people which dictated practically every part of their lives. While mega mystics crave that kind of specificity, it is another aspect of OT religion. God now wants to treat us like spiritual adults, giving us freedom in many areas of our lives. The other God-intended progression of divine revelation that mega mystics ignore is God’s desire to move from individual, private communication with ones like Abraham and Moses, to more communal communication to benefit others.

Finally, mega mysticism fails to demonstrate the ultimate proof of anyone claiming to be receiving more divine revelation from God or experiencing more intimacy with Him: More spiritual fruit and maturity in their lives. Obviously, if someone were truly having God “talk” to them on a regular basis, the Spirit “guide” them more than others, and generally “walk” with God in a more intimate way than others, it would surely make an obvious and significant difference in their lives? Do we see that difference in the mega mystics we know? On the contrary, they are usually less spiritually mature and have a tendency to live according to their feelings.

In chapter 4.5 we demonstrate the unbiblical notion of a private will of God apart from what Scripture says. Unfortunately, mega mysticism greatly expands the nature of God’s will far beyond the moral commands of Scripture, which is a rather scary situation considering the fact that if you don’t discover this extra-biblical will, you are sinning against God and outside of His will and possible blessing. However, if indeed, the whole will of God that we must know and respond to is exclusively moral in nature and already recorded in Scripture then the whole purpose of mega mysticism is eliminated and we are free from the bondage of trying to find God’s will somewhere else If, in fact, God gives us freedom to choose according to wisdom and our preferences in amoral, extra-biblical matters such as which school, job, house, or Christian spouse we choose, then we have a lot more personal liberty and responsibility for good decision making than mega mysticism contends.

In chapter 4.6 we cut the very feet out from under mega mysticism by demonstrating that there are no examples of any of God’s people experiencing God directly planting thoughts in their mind. Mega mysticism depends on this very idea, and they should take notice that there are no examples of it in all of Scripture. While God certainly manipulated pagan rulers by unknowingly controlling their thoughts, God never merely “whispered” or spoke with some “still, small voice” or otherwise communicated amoral thoughts directly to the mind of a believer through some sort of divine/human mental telepathy. This is not even how biblical Prophets and Apostles received the divine revelation from which they wrote Scripture. ^[4]

In chapter 4.7 we describe the dangers of trying to interpret our circumstances as an extra-biblical source of divine revelation. J. I. Packer is especially helpful here.

In chapter 4.8 we demonstrate that throughout Church history mega mysticism has been rejected and warned against in orthodox Christianity. This was partly because it was always thought to be unbiblical, and partly because it led to damaging practices among Christians.

In chapter 4.9 we discuss additional dangers inherent in mega mysticism including: habitual lying about God speaking to us, abusing authority by claiming God speaks to us, disparaging Scripture by claiming the same, denouncing the God-given value and place of Christian reason resulting in living by feelings, the danger of intimidating non-mega mystical Christians, the danger of perverting prayer into an unbiblical “listening” exercise instead of its biblical description as a way to speak to God, and last, but certainly not least, the evil practice of divination which is trying to “divine” the will of God apart from biblical means.

We said above that perhaps the most important critique of mega mysticism is that it is unbiblical. Accordingly, we devote the rest of Book 14 to that purpose. In chapters 14.10-14.15 we demonstrate that there are no biblical examples of God’s people experiencing revelation in the way mega mystics claim they do. Neither OT characters, Jesus, nor the Apostles are ever described as having God merely communicate thoughts to their minds, nor trying to interpret their circumstances as a message from God. In chapters 14.16-14.18 we address specific passages and promises used as proof texts by mega mysticism and conclude that there is no biblical support for this belief and practice at all.

In summary, we contend that mega mysticism exaggerates the expectation of direct extra-biblical divine revelation because Scripture nowhere promises or prescribes it, and does not record a single example of it occurring.

Secondly, mega mysticism exaggerates the value of extra-biblical private inspiration because it does not honor the God-intended sufficiency of Scripture, our conscience, our New Nature, God-ordained authorities, or the God-ordained purpose and value of our Spirit-liberated reason.

Thirdly, mega mysticism exaggerates the need for extra-biblical divine/human mental telepathy because it also exaggerates how much God intends to micro-manage our lives in amoral areas. Accordingly, we write later in the book:

Because God’s whole will for our life is only and always moral in nature, the prescribed [written] will of God completely communicated in Scripture is the only divine will we need to know and obey in order to be completely in God’s will. . . . It is only moral decisions that God is holding us accountable for and which we need divine guidance to obey. God does not have a will in amoral decisions . . . . Scripture clearly teaches that the only will of God that we need to know in order to be fully obedient to Him is God’s moral will. ^[5]

Finally, mega mysticism exaggerates the actual occurrence of extra-biblical private inspiration, because it exaggerates our ability to recognize such a thing if and when it occurred. While mega mystical proponents claim they can confidently distinguish between extra-biblical thoughts directly “inspired” by God from merely their own human thinking, that simply isn’t true. Therefore mega mystics end up continually lying to themselves and others and misrepresenting God. And that is only the beginning of the sins of mega mysticism which we discuss in chapters 14.9.

B) Dealing With the Real Reason for Mega Mysticism

If there are no examples in all of Scripture of someone directly receiving an extra-biblical revelation as a mere thought in their mind, then why is the belief and promotion of this type of thing so popular? We do not wish to be harsh here as we understand how emotionally attached someone might be to their “conversational” relationship with God about all kinds of extra-biblical, amoral matters.

Nonetheless, in our humble opinion, the reason that mega mysticism is so popular is not because there is a supposed abundance of biblical examples of it, but because people will too often believe what they want to believe. As the Apostle Paul warned:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Including the myth of mega mysticism.

Obviously, there are several understandable reasons that the idea of an omniscient God perfectly steering our life through continuing extra-biblical revelation is incredibly attractive. It is quite natural to seek a way in which we can eliminate mistakes in our judgment, avoid the hard work of good decision making, skip the often painful process of growing in wisdom, and eliminate all the risks of not knowing the future like God does. It may be natural to think this way, but then again, one purpose of Scripture is to correct our natural way of thinking (cf. Isa 55:8-9; Luke 16:15).

Humans are naturally mystical and superstitious. We do not need to learn mysticism. The most primitive among us all over the world believe the weather, their health, and virtually every other circumstance in their life is a message from the god(s). If we are not totally depraved and mentally insane, we will look at Creation and know there is a God. And rightfully conclude that He wants to communicate with us. But the Bible says, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the Prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son” (Heb 1:1). And after that it was the Apostles who wrote Scripture. God has decided to speak to us through a Book, and we will simply not be content with that.

When you are claiming that you can teach people how to have a “conversational” relationship with God, you will attract a crowd. Who wouldn’t want this to be true? And if you are taught to interpret your feelings, impulses, and circumstances as direct messages from God, the resulting feelings of significance and “security” will be very, very difficult to abandon. It is unfortunately easy to invest a great deal of one’s personal identity in believing that God is always wanting to “talk” to you.

Many have come to believe that these extra-biblical personal messages from God are the greatest demonstration of His love for them. They believe that if God does not speak to them in this way that He somehow loves them less. But the Scripture says that, “God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

We do not want to be insensitive to how much many have invested in the idea that God is directly revealing extra-biblical direction to them. Many have encouraged them to make this a central part of their relationship with God. But we plead with the reader to find their identity and God’s love for them in the cross, not some unbiblical mega mysticism.

If our identity and relationship with God depend on such supposed revelations, what happens when they fail us? And they will if they are not based in reason and only feelings. Perhaps it is only after someone has been sorely disappointed or disillusioned by mega mystical promises and practices that someone will give it up. Nonetheless, it is probably a mega mystic’s emotional attachment to his beliefs that causes them to simply ignore the many times that their extra-biblical “word from God” was wrong.

Accordingly, mega mystical teachers pull on the heart strings of their victims with this very promise of a “conversational” relationship with God. Dallas Willard, author of the book, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God, writes:

The Spirit that inhabits us is not dumb. . . . It is simply beyond belief that two persons, so intimately related . . . would not speak to each other. How can there be personal relationships, a personal walk with God . . . without individualized [extra-biblical] communication. ^[6]

Accordingly, perhaps one of the most common reasons that people crave a mega mystical mindset is that they believe this is essential to a personal relationship with Christ. As Gary Friesen notes:

One student commented, “I feel like a deist when it comes to guidance.” Another said, “Wisdom guidance seems so impersonal to me. I feel as though God is no longer involved with me as a person.” ^[7]

That is unfortunate because, one, there are not biblical promises, examples, or instructions for mega mysticism, and two, none of the most fruitful, godly, influential, and respected Christian leaders in the history of the Church has claimed or practiced what mega mystics do.

Nonetheless, Gordon T. Smith, a prominent proponent of mega mysticism writes of what we consider a biblical view of guidance and decision making:

What is missing is the power of immediacy-of intimacy and fellowship with Christ. While I would not go so far as to call this approach “cold,” one wonders where God is in all of this, with so few references to the presence of Christ and the ministry of the Spirit. . . . [I]t is nothing but another version of “self-rule,” a kind of “practical deism.” . . . .

The wisdom perspective is all about testing and weighing and considering, but there is not reflected here a radical openness to the Spirit, an eagerness to know Christ intimately and to respond with joy to the inner witness of the Spirit. Indeed, this inner witness, this immediacy, is discounted. And in the process what is lost is the clear expectation that our relationship with Christ would be a reflection of the relationship that Jesus had with the Father. . . .

What we urgently need is an approach to decision making that allows Christ to be fully present to our lives-not just the idea of Christ and not just the wisdom of Christ, but indeed Christ Jesus Himself, who, of course, is present to us by the power and presence of the Spirit. For the Christian, this is the very stuff of life: to know the voice of Jesus, which (especially in the gospel of John) is clearly what Jesus desires for His disciples. ^[8]

Because what Dr. Smith describes is so attractive, we are tempted to agree without further consideration. But again, we believe we can demonstrate in this book that, while the “relationship view” is attractive, it is unbiblical.

Dr. Friesen offers the following in response:

The first is that the apostles did not consider the wisdom approach [which is opposed to mega mysticism] to be impersonal. They never defended their decisions on the basis of inward impulses which led them to God’s “perfect will”; nor did they teach such a method. Yet they are illustrations of the Christian life in action. The apostles frankly explained the decisions they made and usually gave the attending reasons. But they did not regard that process as being carnal, rationalistic, or impersonal. ^[9]

Likewise, Dr. Friesen writes:

Perhaps the problem is that, at first glance, there seems to be nothing in the way of wisdom view [i.e. divine revelation is essentially confined to Scripture and beyond that God expects us to use our reason for good decision making], that corresponds to the sense of intimacy with God that is usually identified with the inward impulses. When a person has spent his life responding to inner impressions as though “this is God speaking to me in my spirit,” it is very difficult to conceive of a personal relationship with God that is experienced in some other way.

Even when the believer accepts with his mind that those impressions are not communications from God, and he mentally understands that God has revealed 100 percent of His moral will for the believer’s guidance, he may feel a void in his heart. He may find he cannot escape the notion that he has had to exchange present tense direction for past tense revelation. It can seem that God is at least 1900 years away, while the believer is left by himself to sort out God’s guidance “by the Book.”

What we are talking about here is the involvement of the emotional aspect of our being. For that’s what inner impressions are -feelings. We even speak of them that way: “I feel that we should stay right where we are for the time being”; “I have a feeling that if we don’t buy it today, we may never have another chance.” ^[10]

But living by feelings is not living by faith. Which is another critique of mega mysticism. Faith is living in a trusting, obedient, peace-filled relationship with a God we do not see, hear, or feel. As we thoroughly discuss elsewhere, the mega mystical addiction to experiencing God with our physical senses and feelings is a rebellion against God’s desire that we now live by faith. Those who are seeking, depending on, and constantly presuming miraculous revelation and intervention into their life have lost the value that God places on faith. ^[11] Likewise, we elsewhere point out the dangers of presuming a “conversational” relationship with God. ^[12]

All in all, the real battle with mega mysticism is over emotions, not Bible verses. Nonetheless, we plead with the reader to take a serious and sober look at the biblical arguments in this book. Is it possible that what you are always presuming to be God’s extra-biblical thoughts in your mind, are actually just your own? As Gary Meadors, the author of Decision Making God’s Way has put it:

You can find a book about God’s will that says exactly what you want to hear if you look long enough. You have to decide, however, which view really reflects biblical teaching and is a sound evaluation of the way God has designed life to work. ^[13]

C) Modern Responses to Mega Mysticism

Before we disprove mega mysticism from Scripture, it might be helpful to know that there are a number of respected Bible Teachers today who share our position and concerns. While in chapter 14.8 we quote from a number of the most influential theologians of the past, here we quote from the relatively few modern Teachers who are willing to denounce elements of mega mysticism. Unfortunately, since the days of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), there has been a decrease in biblical critiques of mega mysticism which continues even today. Far too often leaders are either embracing it themselves, confused by it, or perceive it as an innocent practice. However, some of our favorite Teachers have answered the call to defend the Church against perhaps the greatest modern threat to the Protestant Reformation battle cry of sola Scriptura which is mega mysticism.

C.1) John MacArthur

John MacArthur, as usual, gives us a needed warning regarding mysticism in general in his commentary on Colossians 2:18-23:

Mysticism may be defined as the pursuit of a deeper or higher subjective religious experience. It is the belief that spiritual reality is perceived apart from the human intellect and natural senses. It looks for truth internally, weighing feelings, intuition, and other internal sensations more heavily than objective, observable, external data. Mysticism ultimately derives its authority from a self-actualized, self-authenticated light rising from within.

This irrational and anti-intellectual approach is the antithesis of Christian theology. The false teachers claimed a mystical union with God. Paul exhorts the Colossians not to allow those false teachers to keep defrauding them of their prize. . . .

Paul warns the Colossians not to be intimidated by the false teachers’ claims. Far from being the spiritual elite they thought themselves to be, they were inflated without cause by their fleshly minds. Being guilty of gross spiritual pride, they were devoid of the Holy Spirit. Having gone beyond the teaching of Christ (cf. 2 John 9), they were not holding fast to the head, that is, Christ (cf. Col. 1:18). . . .

There is a tendency in human nature to move from objectivity to subjectivity—to shift the focus from Christ to experience. This has always intimidated weak believers and threatened the church. Today this brand of mysticism is most commonly seen in the charismatic movement—where Scripture is a distant second in importance to visions and revelations.

When such intimidation came from the sixteenth-century mystical charismatics of Martin Luther’s day, the great Reformer was very firm with them, clinging to biblical revelation and the centrality and sufficiency of Christ. In particular, the followers of Thomas Münzer and the radical Anabaptists gave great prominence to the work and gifts of the Spirit—and to mystical knowledge. Their cry, expressing their supra-biblical experience, was “The Spirit, the Spirit!” Luther replied, “I will not follow where their spirit leads.” When they were granted the privilege of an interview with Luther, they gave their cry “The Spirit, the Spirit!” The great Reformer was not impressed and thundered, “I slap your spirit on the snout.”

We, like the Colossians, must not be intimidated by those who would make something other than knowing Christ through His [written] Word a requirement for spiritual maturity. Christ is all sufficient. ^[14]

Elsewhere, Dr. MacArthur has written regarding Colossians 2:18-20:

The Colossian believers were also being intimidated by people who claimed to have a higher, broader, deeper, and fuller union with God than Christ alone could give. They were the mystics. They claimed to have interacted with angelic beings through visions and other mystical experiences. . . .

Mysticism is still very much alive, still using spiritual intimidation to demean the uninitiated. People today who claim to have had heavenly visions or spellbinding experiences are often simply puffed up with idle notions using their claims to intimidate others into elevating them. As the apostle Paul wrote the Colossian believers, that kind of mysticism is the product of a prideful and unspiritual mind. Those who embrace it have turned from their sufficiency in Christ, who alone produces true spirituality. Don’t be intimidated by them. . . .

Apparently the Colossian mystics claimed that anyone not having similar esoteric visions or embracing similar doctrines was disqualified from obtaining the prize of true spirituality. In reality they themselves were the disqualified ones (1 Cor. 9:27). ^[15]

Likewise, Dr. MacArthur has written regarding mysticism:

Waging war on reason and truth, it is thus in direct conflict with Christ and Scripture. It has taken hold rapidly because it promises what so many people are seeking: something more, something better, something richer, something easier-something fast and easy to substitute for a life of careful, disciplined obedience to the Word of Christ. And because so many lack certainty that their sufficiency is in Christ, mysticism has caught many Christians unaware. It has thus swept much of the church into a dangerous netherworld of confusion and false teaching. ^[16]

C.2) J. I. Packer

J. I. Packer, who has devoted a great deal of his life to defending the authority of Scripture, has warned against mega mysticism in many of his writings. In Knowing Christianity he wrote:

Faith focuses not on feelings but on facts, not on reactions inside us but on realities outside us, on the words and works of the God who is there . . . There are imitation experiences of God . . . that do not spring from real faith and are not instances of knowledge of God at all. This is something we must not forget. ^[17]

But mega mystics have forgotten, and have precisely focused their “faith . . . on feelings” and “reactions inside us.” In Keep in Step With the Spirit, Dr. Packer wrote:

The Spirit [indirectly] works through means–through the objective means of grace, namely, biblical truth, prayer, fellowship, worship, and the Lord’s Supper, and with them through the subjective means of grace whereby we open ourselves to change, namely, thinking, listening, questioning oneself, examining oneself, admonishing oneself, sharing what is in one’s heart with others, and weighing any response they make.

The Spirit shows his power in us, not by constantly interrupting our use of these means with visions, impressions, or prophecies, which serve up to us ready-made insights on a plate, so to speak (such communications come only rarely, and to some believers not at all), but rather by making these regular means effective to change us for the better and for the wiser as we go along. ^[18]

Dr. Packer also addresses the mega mystical claim of immediate, direct extra-biblical divine revelation when he writes:

The New Testament directs Christians to get their guidance on faith and life from apostolic teaching backed by the Old Testament–that is, in effect, from the Bible we have–rather than from any non-rational, out-of-the-blue illuminations, and Paul is very hard on the person who rests his faith on visions (see Col. 2:18).

While it is not for us to forbid God to reveal things apart from Scripture, or to do anything else (he is God, after all!), we may properly insist that the New Testament discourages Christians from expecting to receive God’s word to them by any other channel than that of attentive application to themselves of what is given to us twentieth-century Christians in Holy Scripture. ^[19]

Finally, in his bestseller Knowing God, Dr. Packer helpfully addresses the topic of divine guidance:

Earnest Christians seeking guidance often go about it wrongly. Why? Often their notion of the nature and method of divine guidance is distorted. They look for flashiness; they overlook the guidance that is close at hand and let themselves in for all sorts of delusions. Their basic mistake is to think of guidance as essentially inward prompting by the Holy Spirit apart from the written Word. This Idea, which is as old as the false prophets of the Old Testament and as new as the Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament [and modern mega mysticism], is a seedbed in which all forms of fanaticism and folly can grow.

How do thoughtful Christians come to make this mistake? What seems to happen is this. They hear the word guidance and think at once of a particular class of “guidance problems” on which, perhaps, the books they have read and the testimonies they have heard tended to harp exclusively. . . .

Christians have been both comic and tragic. The idea of a life in which the inward voice of the Spirit decides and directs everything sounds most attractive, for it seems to exalt the Spirit’s ministry and to promise the closest intimacy with God. In practice this quest for super-spirituality leads only to frantic bewilderment or lunacy. . . .

Conduct of this sort shows a failure to grasp that the fundamental mode whereby our rational Creator guides his rational creatures is by rational understanding and application of his written Word. . . . The true way to honor the Holy Spirit as our guide is to honor the Holy Scriptures through which he guides us. The fundamental guidance that God gives to shape our lives-the instilling, that is, of the basic convictions, attitudes, ideals and value judgments by which we are to live-is not a matter of inward promptings apart from the Word. . . .

The basic form of divine guidance, therefore, is the presentation to us of positive ideals as guide-lines for all our living. “Be the kind of person that Jesus was.” “Seek this virtue, and this one, and this, and practice them to the limit.” “Know your responsibilities-husbands, to your wives; wives, to your husbands; parents, to your children; all of you, to all your fellow Christians and all your fellow men-and seek strength constantly to fulfill these responsibilities.”

This is how God guides us through the Bible, as any student of the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets, the Sermon on the Mount and the ethical parts of the Epistles will soon discover. “Depart from evil, and do good” (Ps 34:14; 37:27). This is the highway along which the Bible is concerned to lead us, and all its admonitions are concerned to keep us on it. Note that the reference to being “led by the Spirit” in Romans 8:14 does not relate to inward voices or any such experience but to mortifying known sin and not living after the flesh.

[Why do Christians fall into mega mysticism?] First, unwillingness to think. It is false piety, super-supernaturalism of an unhealthy and pernicious sort, that demands inward impressions that have no rational base and declines to heed the constant biblical summons to consider. God made us thinking beings . . . . “O that they were wise . . . that they would consider. . .” (Deut 32:29).

Second, unwillingness to think ahead and weigh the long-term consequences of alternative courses of action. “Think ahead” is part of the divine rule of life no less than of the human rule of the road. Often we can only see what is wise and right (and what is foolish and wrong) as we dwell on long-term consequences. “O that they were wise . . . that they would consider. . . their latter end.”

Third, unwillingness to take advice. Scripture is emphatic on the need for this. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice” (Prov 12:16). It is a sign of conceit and immaturity to ignore advice in major decisions. There are always people who know the Bible, human nature, and our own gifts and limitations better than we do. Even if we cannot finally accept their advice, only good will come to us from carefully weighing what they say. ^[20]

C.3) D. M. Lloyd-Jones

D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) believed that God once gave him a premonition of his future, but then warned:

Now the danger always is that once you have any experience of such direct leading, you get into the condition in which you cease to function with your normal faculties because you are always waiting for some immediate guidance.

I use my next illustration with considerable fear and trembling, and yet I feel confident that what I am going to say is right. In the history of the 1904-5 revival in Wales, I always feel that the man who was so signally used of God in that revival, the late Mr. Evan Roberts, definitely crossed the particular line that I am trying to draw, and got into a state in which he would do nothing without an immediate direct leading of the Spirit.

For instance, he might have been announced to preach in a chapel. The people would be there and even he would be there, but he would sit and not speak a word because he said that the Spirit had not led him to do so even though the meeting had been announced and the fact that he was to be present at it. And thus it became increasingly the case with him that he would not take even some of the smallest decisions without some immediate direct guidance. Eventually, of course, he had a breakdown in health and in his nervous constitution. And that has happened to many others who have gone in this particular direction. ^[21]

It can be claimed that this is an exaggerated example, but how did Mr. Roberts’ belief about the leading of the Holy Spirit really differ from the mega mystical practice of many today? Perhaps only in the fact that he applied it more consistently to his life than even most mega mystics are comfortable with. But why? If such guidance is available, why wouldn’t we apply it as consistently as Mr. Roberts? How do we know when to expect the Spirit’s extra-biblical revelation for decisions and when we have to merely rely on our reasoning? We do not think mega mysticism has any good answers to these critical questions.

C.4) Bruce Waltke

The renowned OT scholar Bruce Waltke has also warned of mega mysticism’s threat to the authority of Scripture:

That same hermeneutic misinterprets Proverbs 3:5, 6 and James 1:5, and relies on a principle that God is hiding His will from us, rather than revealing Himself to us [in Scripture] and holding back nothing from the children He loves. This demeans Scripture, since it requires a Christian to reject the Bible as the ultimate source of authority so as to wait for a new revelation. It sets a dangerous precedent of placing our feelings and experiences above those of God’s inspired Word, and therefore is akin to heresy.

We evangelicals get up in arms when a cult claims they cannot accept a blood transfusion because the Old Testament warns against “eating blood” or when an obscure passage is relied upon to defend the cultic practice of baptizing for the dead, but we don’t bat an eye when someone in our own camp speaks in a way that places personal experience over God’s revealed Word. This kind of theology, in my view, rejects the depiction of God in the New Testament as loving and caring, and replaces it with the remote and mysterious god of the pagans. He is reduced to the level of a genie. ^[22]

C.5) John Piper

Here we share a powerful story told by John Piper that reminds us of the intimacy with God that Scripture provides us.

Let me tell you about a most wonderful experience I had early Monday morning, March 19, 2007, a little after six o’clock. God actually spoke to me. There is no doubt that it was God. I heard the words in my head just as clearly as when a memory of a conversation passes across your consciousness. The words were in English, but they had about them an absolutely self-authenticating ring of truth. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today.

I couldn’t sleep for some reason. I was at Shalom House in northern Minnesota on a staff couples’ retreat. It was about five thirty in the morning. I lay there wondering if I should get up or wait till I got sleepy again. In his mercy, God moved me out of bed. It was mostly dark, but I managed to find my clothing, got dressed, grabbed my briefcase, and slipped out of the room without waking up Noël. In the main room below, it was totally quiet. No one else seemed to be up. So I sat down on a couch in the corner to pray.

As I prayed and mused, suddenly it happened. God said, “Come and see what I have done.” There was not the slightest doubt in my mind that these were the very words of God. In this very moment. At this very place in the twenty-first century, 2007, God was speaking to me with absolute authority and self-evidencing reality. I paused to let this sink in. There was a sweetness about it. Time seemed to matter little. God was near. He had me in his sights. He had something to say to me. When God draws near, hurry ceases. Time slows down.

I wondered what he meant by “come and see.” Would he take me somewhere, like he did Paul into heaven to see what can’t be spoken? Did “see” mean that I would have a vision of some great deed of God that no one has seen? I am not sure how much time elapsed between God’s initial word, “Come and see what I have done,” and his next words. It doesn’t matter. I was being enveloped in the love of his personal communication. The God of the universe was speaking to me.

Then he said, as clearly as any words have ever come into my mind, “I am awesome in my deeds toward the children of man.” My heart leaped up, “Yes, Lord! You are awesome in your deeds. Yes, to all men whether they see it or not. Yes! Now what will you show me?”

The words came again. Just as clear as before, but increasingly specific: “I turned the sea into dry land; they passed through the river on foot. There they rejoiced in me—who rules by my might forever.” Suddenly I realized God was taking me back several thousand years to the time when he dried up the Red Sea and the Jordan River. I was being transported by his word back into history to those great deeds. This is what he meant by “come and see.” He was transporting me back by his words to those two glorious deeds before the children of men. These were the “awesome deeds” he referred to. God himself was narrating the mighty works of God. He was doing it for me. He was doing it with words that were resounding in my own mind.

There settled over me a wonderful reverence. A palpable peace came down. This was a holy moment and a holy corner of the world in northern Minnesota. God Almighty had come down and was giving me the stillness and the openness and the willingness to hear his very voice. As I marveled at his power to dry the sea and the river, he spoke again. “I keep watch over the nations—let not the rebellious exalt themselves.”

This was breathtaking. It was very serious. It was almost a rebuke. At least a warning. He may as well have taken me by the collar of my shirt, lifted me off the ground with one hand, and said, with an incomparable mixture of fierceness and love, “Never, never, never exalt yourself. Never rebel against me.”

I sat staring at nothing. My mind was full of the global glory of God. “I keep watch over the nations.” He had said this to me. It was not just that he had said it. Yes, that is glorious. But he had said this to me. The very words of God were in my head. They were there in my head just as much as the words that I am writing at this moment are in my head. They were heard as clearly as if at this moment I recalled that my wife said, “Come down for supper whenever you are ready.” I know those are the words of my wife. And I know these are the words of God.

Think of it. Marvel at this. Stand in awe of this. The God who keeps watch over the nations, like some people keep watch over cattle or stock markets or construction sites—this God still speaks in the twenty-first century. I heard his very words. He spoke personally to me.

What effect did this have on me? It filled me with a fresh sense of God’s reality. It assured me more deeply that he acts in history and in our time. It strengthened my faith that he is for me and cares about me and will use his global power to watch over me. Why else would he come and tell me these things?

It has increased my love for the Bible as God’s very word, because it was through the Bible that I heard these divine words, and through the Bible I have experiences like this almost every day. The very God of the universe speaks on every page into my mind—and your mind. We hear his very words. God himself has multiplied his wondrous deeds and thoughts toward us; none can compare with him! I will proclaim and tell of them, yet they are more than can be told (Psalm 40:5).

And best of all, they are available to all. If you would like to hear the very same words I heard on the couch in northern Minnesota, read Psalm 66:5-7. That is where I heard them. O how precious is the Bible. It is the very word of God. In it God speaks in the twenty-first century. This is the very voice of God. By this voice, he speaks with absolute truth and personal force. By this voice, he reveals his all-surpassing beauty. By this voice, he reveals the deepest secrets of our hearts. No voice anywhere anytime can reach as deep or lift as high or carry as far as the voice of God that we hear in the Bible.

It is a great wonder that God still speaks today through the Bible with greater force and greater glory and greater assurance and greater sweetness and greater hope and greater guidance and greater transforming power and greater Christ-exalting truth than can be heard through any voice in any human soul on the planet from outside the Bible.

This is why I found the article in this month’s Christianity Today, “My Conversation with God,” so sad. Written by an anonymous professor at a “well-known Christian University,” it tells of his experience of hearing God. What God said was that he must give all his royalties from a new book toward the tuition of a needy student. What makes me sad about the article is not that it isn’t true or didn’t happen. What’s sad is that it really does give the impression that extra-biblical communication with God is surpassingly wonderful and faith-deepening. All the while, the supremely-glorious communication of the living God which personally and powerfully and transformingly explodes in the receptive heart through the Bible everyday is passed over in silence.

I am sure this professor of theology did not mean it this way, but what he actually said was, “For years I’ve taught that God still speaks, but I couldn’t testify to it personally. I can only do so now anonymously, for reasons I hope will be clear” (emphasis added). Surely he does not mean what he seems to imply—that only when one hears an extra-biblical voice like, “The money is not yours,” can you testify personally that God still speaks. Surely he does not mean to belittle the voice of God in the Bible which speaks this very day with power and truth and wisdom and glory and joy and hope and wonder and helpfulness ten thousand times more decisively than anything we can hear outside the Bible.

I grieve at what is being communicated here. The great need of our time is for people to experience the living reality of God by hearing his word personally and transformingly in Scripture. Something is incredibly wrong when the words we hear outside Scripture are more powerful and more affecting to us than the inspired word of God. Let us cry with the psalmist, “Incline my heart to your word” (Psalm 119:36). “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law” (Psalm 119:18). Grant that the eyes of our hearts would be enlightened to know our hope and our inheritance and the love of Christ that passes knowledge and be filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 1:18; 3:19). O God, don’t let us be so deaf to your word and so unaffected with its ineffable, evidential excellency that we celebrate lesser things as more thrilling, and even consider this misplacement of amazement worthy of printing in a national magazine. ^[23]

If anyone wants to claim that God is still putting extra-biblical thoughts in our head, wanting to have a “conversation” with us, tell us to “go fishing,” or divine His will and extra-biblical message to us in our circumstances, then they do so knowing that they are at odds with Bible Teachers the likes of MacArthur, Packer, and Piper. This should at least cause the most ardent mega mystic to slow down and take a second look at the Scriptures that are so commonly used to support their view. In some of the following chapters we do this very thing.

C.6) Other Modern Responses

Gary Friesen, Professor of Bible at Multnomah Bible College and author of the very good and classic book, Decision Making and the Will of God, has written succinctly:

Let me oversimplify the specific-will [mega mystical] argument. God “spoke” to prophets by direct revelation, and this proves that He “speaks” to every believer through circumstances. God spoke directly to His apostles with His authoritative message, and this proves that He “speaks” through some of the advice of believers. An angel told Philip to go into the desert to witness to one man, and this proves that God will impress your heart to give witness to one person rather than another.

They wisely say that guidance will not add to the canon and that it is not “new revelation.” At the same time, they want all the results of revelation: God told me; it was clear; I must obey. But they do not claim miraculous revelation. Their examples are non miraculous, subjective, and usually harmonize with a “wise” decision. A more charismatic version of the specific-will position argues these examples more consistently. They claim to have the same direct revelation, regular miracles, angelic visitations, prophets, and sometimes even apostles.

Their case would be more convincing if they presented biblical examples of people being guided in the nonmiraculous subjective means they expect. The wisdom [biblical] view takes the miraculous examples of guidance seriously. It is possible for God to give specific guidance by miraculous revelation. And, if He does this, it will be a miraculous angel, not a stirring impression; it will be through a voice out of the fire, not a feeling in the heart. . . .

The Blackabys say, “To understand God’s will, we must be able to recognize when He is speaking.” This was not a problem for a prophet or an apostle. Once you define God’s “speaking” as reading subjective impulses, however, then you are left with trying to pick the divine impressions from all the other impressions. Rest assured, if God actually “speaks” revelation to you, you could not miss it even if you wanted to. . . .

The Blackabys are arguing that things have not changed and God is still “speaking” to people. The reality is that the Blackabys have changed the biblical meaning of the word “speaks.” . . . .

[T]he passages commonly cited in support of a specific, detailed plan that each individual must find are better interpreted as referring to God’s moral will or His sovereign will [which we do not need to know]. This is the foundational fallacy of the [mega mystical] view; all other problems flow from it. . . .

It is my contention that the [mega mystical] view is looking for the wrong thing (certain advance knowledge of God’s individual will) and asking the wrong questions (“How can I know God’s will for sure? and “Where does this inner impression come from?”). There is a better approach—the one taught in the Bible. ^[24]

The Christian apologist E. J. Carnell (1919-1967) wrote:

If a man by an inward ‘crisis’ experience thinks that he is called to rule the world, as did Hitler, then the validity of his act is as secure as the validity of his [feeling]. . . . Against all forms of argument from religious experience we pit the argument that feelings are not qualified to critique themselves. If feeling rather than intellect is the most qualified organ of man to know God, it follows that all of the feelings must be normative witnesses. Schleiermacher preferred the feeling of personal piety, but his selection does not exhaust the possibilities. There is also anger, jealousy, laughter, spite, love, and the like. Which of these feelings is the best channel through which to approach the Divine? ^[25]

The Seventh Day Adventist theologian Norman Gully has written:

We live in a time when devotees of the New Age movement count down to Delta 7 and commune with spirit guides. There are some Christians who meditate in order to enter a conversation with God. Scripture does not recommend such a private communication. It warns about the spirits of devils who deceive humans (Rev. 16:13-14; cf. I Sam. 28). Meditation for the wrong reason can lead Christians to an encounter with fallen spirits who masquerade as God or angels of light. Meditation should not be experienced with a view to enter a private dialogue with God. Rather, one must come to Scripture and allow God to speak through it in a personal way to the reader. ^[26]

Haddon W. Robinson, former President of Gordon-Conwell Seminary and noted Bible Teacher writes:

We must face the fact: “How do you know the will of God in making life’s decisions?” is not a biblical question! The Bible never tells us to ask it. The Bible never gives us direction in answering it. And the pursuit of some personalized version of the “will of God” often leads us toward disobedience. . . . We shouldn’t seek special messages from God. Instead, we should ask, “How do we develop the skills necessary to make wise and prudent choices? ^[27]

Pastor Bob Dewaay offers some sobering insight into why mega mysticism is so rampant in our day:

[W]hy are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it.

I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (I Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ.

But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else. ^[28]

Along these lines, Ruth Tucker, former Associate Professor of Missiology at Calvin Seminary, in her good book God Talk, suggests some cultural reasons that mega mysticism is such a modern phenomenon:

Is it possible, I wonder, in this overly communicative Western culture, that we are expecting too much from God? Just like our best friend with a cell phone, we expect God to pick up every time we call, and we make those calls at an ever-increasing rate. “Those cell phones we see everywhere,” writes Louis Rene Beres in a June 2005 editorial in the Chicago Tribune,”are no more or less than a desperate attempt to keep from being alone with ourselves in a vast, uncaring universe” (“Don’t Hang Up,” June 12, 2005). . . .

Does this phenomenon parallel our own attempts to communicate with God? And is our communication frequently self-serving? Our reported words from God often sound eerily like our own. God’s opinions and priorities are ours. And we expect customer care. . . .

Is it possible that we are filling our own sense of silence and void with a projected wordiness of God? There are countless books and tapes and seminars on hearing God’s voice, listening to God and having two-way conversations in prayer. Are these indicative of a collective craving for special words and messages-messages transmitted randomly to people in their prayer closets or driving home from work? . . .

There are negative side effects to this sort of interactive personalized spirituality. Such a spiritual perspective too easily humanizes God, whose voice often begins to sound very much like our own. It fails to recognize our own subjectivity and self-absorption. It tends to focus more on the individual than on God-or on the community. It easily lends itself to spiritual abuse (as in “I prayed about this decision,” therefore, it’s right). And it opens itself to elitism-a favored friendship with God (as is true in everyday name-dropping, when people reference their familiarity with the rich and famous).

Indeed, I will argue that the talkative God of today is a second-rate version of the trinitarian God, who as Father spoke in times past, who as Son incarnate lived among us, and who as Spirit inspired and illumines the Scriptures, the silent Word of God. . . .

As a church historian I often reflect back over the centuries of our Christian heritage and contemplate how the faith has changed over two millennia. A fascinating area of change relates to spirituality and spiritual formation. New Testament spirituality was above all else active spirituality. Jesus modeled and preached the active life, as did Paul. That pattern continued on through the early church. . . . The further we have moved from the New Testament era the more subjective the faith has become for both Catholics and Protestants. ^[29]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) Which points or quotes above were most compelling for you as arguments against mega mysticism? Why?

2) Which points or quotes above were most questionable for you as arguments against mega mysticism? Why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Gary Friesen in Huffman, 117. ↑

2. Emile Cailliet, “God Never Gives a Blueprint,” Eternity, August 1960, 6. ↑

3. Gary Friesen in How Then Should We Choose, ed. Douglas Huffman (Kregel, 2009), 146. ↑

4. Regarding the fact that “inspiration” is not a biblical concept in the sense of planting thoughts directly in the mind see section 14.6.E.3 and the additional references there. ↑

5. Excerpt from section 14.5.B.2.b. ↑

6. Quoted by Doug Bannister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 99. ↑

7. Gary Friesen and John Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 2004), 243. ↑

8. Gordon T. Smith in Huffman, 170-71 ↑

9. Friesen, 261. ↑

10. Ibid. ↑

11. Regarding our claim that mega mystics have actually abandoned living by faith see section 4.4.C. ↑

12. Regarding the nature and dangers of the mega mystical claim to a private will of God see section 14.5.B.4.c-d. ↑

13. Gary Meadors, Decision Making God’s Way (Baker, 2003), 133. ↑

14. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), Colossians, 2:18. ↑

15. John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ (Crossway, 1998), 180-1. ↑

16. John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 180, 182-3. ↑

17. J. I. Packer, Knowing Christianity (Harold Shaw, 1995), 6. ↑

18. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Revell, 1984), 109. ↑

19. J.I. Packer, God’s Words: Studies of Key Bible Themes (Intervarsity, 1981). ↑

20. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Intervarsity, 1973). ↑

21. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, The Sovereign Spirit: Discerning the Gifts (Harold Shaw, 1985), 93. ↑

22. Bruce Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Eerdmans, 1995), 68. ↑

23. By John Piper March 21, 2007 The Morning I Heard the Voice of God ↑

24. Gary Friesen in Huffman, 89-90, 107, 116 ↑

25. Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 79. ↑

26. Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Andrews University, 2003), 287. ↑

27. Haddon Robinson, Decision Making by the Book (Victor, 1998), 54-55 ↑

28. Bob Dewaay, “Why Evangelicals Are Turning to Rome” Critical Issues Commentary, #105, 3. ↑

29. Ruth Tucker, God Talk: Cautions For Those Who Hear God’s Voice (Intervarsity, 2005), 8, 12, 14, 113-114. ↑